On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Bill Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:19 +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
. . .
...and normal programmers care about the Fibonacci numbers because...?
Seriously, there are many, many programmers who don't even know what
Fibonacci numbers *are*. And even I can't
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Henning Thielemann wrote:
Worst case analysis of AVL trees also leads to Fibonacci numbers, as far
as I remember.
The number of possibilities to arrange bricks of a certain width is also
Fibonacci number. In general I think that Fibonacci numbers serve as
simple
On 12/12/07, Bill Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:19 +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
. . .
...and normal programmers care about the Fibonacci numbers because...?
Seriously, there are many, many programmers who don't even know what
Fibonacci numbers *are*. And even I
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 09:55 -0500, Denis Bueno wrote:
. . .
More importantly for this discussion, however: Fibonacci heaps have
nothing to do with calculating the fibonacci numbers, and you don't
even need to know what the fibonacci sequence is to use fibonacci
heaps. (You discover what it
gwern0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the reader is still interested and still takes Haskell
seriously after puzzling over the foregoing, this would either
be pointless or off-putting. Well, *of course* there are
compilers for most computers. You aren't a serious
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Emre Sahin wrote:
How do you think the description could be improved?
Why don't you let Haskell speak for itself?
Instead of putting such buzzwords nobody really understands (and
cares), put random problem descriptions and one-line solutions in
Haskell. Well
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Elkins
(Not directed at gwern in particular)
I have a better idea. Let's decide to do nothing. The
benefits of this
approach are: 1) it takes zero effort to implement, 2) the number of
people who immediately give up
Bayley, Alistair wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Elkins
(Not directed at gwern in particular)
I have a better idea. Let's decide to do nothing. The
benefits of this
approach are: 1) it takes zero effort to implement, 2) the number of
Emre Sahin wrote:
Why don't you let Haskell speak for itself?
Instead of putting such buzzwords nobody really understands (and
cares), put random problem descriptions and one-line solutions in
Haskell. Well known problems like Fibonacci, Quicksort, etc. may be
good candidates, even add 1 to all
Andrew Coppin wrote:
Yeah, we should probably set up a seperate list for this stuff...
Perhaps you can use
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/?title=Talk:FrontpageDraftaction=edit ?
That page is also a better place to fight your edit wars than the front
page is.
Reinier
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:19 +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
. . .
...and normal programmers care about the Fibonacci numbers because...?
Seriously, there are many, many programmers who don't even know what
Fibonacci numbers *are*. And even I can't think of a useful purpose for
them. (Unless
Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Yeah, we should probably set up a seperate list for this
stuff...
Agreed. :)
This type of general discussions cannot be concluded. A board of bored
Haskellers socialize themselves.
To be honest, I didn't read that thing (in
Bill Wood wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:19 +, Andrew Coppin wrote:
. . .
...and normal programmers care about the Fibonacci numbers because...?
Seriously, there are many, many programmers who don't even know what
Fibonacci numbers *are*. And even I can't think of a useful purpose
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 03:12 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FWIW to the discussion about changing the main page, I was reading the CUFP
paper and I saw some germane comments (and the writer is apparently one
Noel Welsh, whose name I don't see in the thread); the context is a
discussion (pg
I have not used Haskell to write large scale program, but I am
certainly interested to know the answer to these questions.
Can Haskell offer the following as Pythoner boasts?
1. can be used for many kinds of software development. (some may argue yes,
but different kinds from what python is good
On Dec 11, 2007, at 22:47 , Steve Lihn wrote:
1. can be used for many kinds of software development. (some may
argue yes, but different kinds from what python is good for.)
This question is somewhat tied to (3), but really the answer is it
can be, but you may have to think differently
On 2007.12.12 03:29:13 +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled
1.6K characters:
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 03:12 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FWIW to the discussion about changing the main page, I was reading the CUFP
paper and I saw some germane comments (and the writer is
stevelihn:
I have not used Haskell to write large scale program, but I am
certainly interested to know the answer to these questions.
Can Haskell offer the following as Pythoner boasts?
1. can be used for many kinds of software development. (some may argue
yes, but
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 23:06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007.12.12 03:29:13 +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled
1.6K characters:
Am Mittwoch, 12. Dezember 2007 03:12 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FWIW to the discussion about changing the main page, I was reading the
i did just read the haskell description from galois [1]. i like
1) ...enabling much higher coding efficiency, in addition to formalisms that
greatly ease verification.
2) All programming languages suffer from a semantic gap:...
maybe we could compose sth similar to 1) to introduce static typed
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Haskell one is dominated by the technical terms, while the Python
one is by more generic features. Let's break them down:
Plese, not again. Did you follow the earlier phases of that thread?
___
Dan Weston wrote:
[...] and facilitates borrow-from-the-future techniques where
useful with infinite data structures or recursive algorithms.
And this, gentlemen, is just one of the reasons why Haskell gets
labelled as scary.
It's very hard to explain what this enigmatic riddle-like
Andrew Coppin writes:
Dan Weston wrote:
[...] and facilitates borrow-from-the-future techniques where useful
with infinite data structures or recursive algorithms.
And this, gentlemen, is just one of the reasons why Haskell gets labelled
as scary.
It's very hard to explain what this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Coppin writes:
Dan Weston wrote:
[...] and facilitates borrow-from-the-future techniques where
useful with infinite data structures or recursive algorithms.
And this, gentlemen, is just one of the reasons why Haskell gets
labelled as scary.
It's very hard
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 23:11 -0500, Sterling Clover wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:34 AM, David Fox wrote:
In that case we need to identify all the groups that the front page
is serving and create separate areas for each, all above the fold
as it were:
1. A sales pitch for new
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:27:39AM +0100, Thomas Schilling wrote:
Sorry, but are you talking of *one* homepage? This can all go into own
wiki pages that are aimed at certain audiences, but this really can't
all fit on the front page.
I'm reminded of http://www.shiregames.com/shiregames/
We
On 28 Nov 2007, at 13:41, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:27:39AM +0100, Thomas Schilling wrote:
Sorry, but are you talking of *one* homepage? This can all go into
own
wiki pages that are aimed at certain audiences, but this really can't
all fit on the front page.
I'm
I put up a draft page. Feel free to adjust it.
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/FrontpageDraft
/ Thomas
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
On Nov 28, 2007 8:54 PM, Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I put up a draft page. Feel free to adjust it.
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/FrontpageDraft
Perhaps slightly OT, but while we're discussing the front page. Is
there any way of getting rid of the numbering on the front
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 21:02 +, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 8:54 PM, Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I put up a draft page. Feel free to adjust it.
http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/FrontpageDraft
Perhaps slightly OT, but while we're discussing the front page.
On Nov 28, 2007 9:30 PM, Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 21:02 +, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 8:54 PM, Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I put up a draft page. Feel free to adjust it.
* Static typing, which increases robustness by allowing the
compiler to catch many common errors automatically.
* Type inference, which deduces types automatically and frees
the programmer from writing superfluous type signatures.
* Higher order functions, polymorphism, and
Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Haskell is a general-purpose, pure functional programming languages
that puts many interesting results from research into a practical
programming language. It's features include:
* Static typing with type inference: enables writing robust and fast
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 20:31 -0800, David Fox wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 11:38 AM, Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Haskell is a general-purpose, pure functional programming
languages
that puts many interesting results from research into a
On Nov 26, 2007 1:44 PM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the point is that this section of the site is the bit that's meant
to be an advertisement -- we're trying to encourage people to read
more,
Are we? I thought Haskell.org was intended to describe what Haskell *is*.
There are
On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:44, David Menendez wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 1:44 PM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the point is that this section of the site is the bit that's meant
to be an advertisement -- we're trying to encourage people to read
more,
Are we? I thought Haskell.org was
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 09:44 -0500, David Menendez wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 1:44 PM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the point is that this section of the site is the bit
that's meant
to be an advertisement -- we're trying to
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:44, David Menendez wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 1:44 PM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the point is that this section of the site is the bit that's meant
to be an advertisement -- we're trying to encourage people to
On Nov 27, 2007 8:14 AM, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:44, David Menendez wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 1:44 PM, Thomas Davie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the point is that this section of the site is the bit
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 08:34 -0800, David Fox wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 8:14 AM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:44, David Menendez wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007 1:44 PM,
On Nov 27, 2007 11:14 AM, Henning Thielemann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this is true, but for me it means, that we do not need another
advertisement at Haskell.org, but facts. I also expect that people
visiting the site already know about static typing and have categorized
themselves
On Nov 27, 2007, at 11:34 AM, David Fox wrote:
In that case we need to identify all the groups that the front page
is serving and create separate areas for each, all above the fold
as it were:
1. A sales pitch for new users. I see how much this disturbs
some people, but maybe it is
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Don Stewart wrote:
The Haskell website has the rather strange motivational text:
Haskell is a general purpose, purely functional programming language
featuring static typing, higher order functions, polymorphism, type
classes, and monadic effects. Haskell
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 26 Nov 2007, at 15:15, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Don Stewart wrote:
The Haskell website has the rather strange motivational text:
Haskell is a general purpose, purely functional programming
language
featuring
On 26 Nov 2007, at 15:50, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007, Thomas Davie wrote:
On 26 Nov 2007, at 15:15, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Don Stewart wrote:
The Haskell website has the rather strange motivational text:
Haskell is a general purpose, purely
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:36 -0700, Don Stewart wrote:
It was raised at CUFP today that while Python has:
Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be
used for many kinds of software development. It offers strong
support for integration with other languages
Thomas Davie wrote:
But the point is that this section of the site is the bit that's meant
to be an advertisement -- we're trying to encourage people to read
more, and quite frankly, making it a fist full of links would make at
least me think Well bugger this if I have to read 10 pages before
On Nov 26, 2007 11:38 AM, Thomas Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Haskell is a general-purpose, pure functional programming languages
that puts many interesting results from research into a practical
programming language. It's features include:
I think it is stronger to say many
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 19:33 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 18:35 , Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
You are not expected to be convinced this, but it seems
continuations completely characterize system programming. :)
Didn't someone already prove all monads can be
Tim Newsham wrote:
You are not expected to understand this.
http://swtch.com/unix/
Hehehe!
Elite system programmers understand it.
If it is rephrased in terms of continuations, elite lambda calculus
programmers will also understand it.
You are not expected to be convinced this, but it
On Oct 12, 2007, at 18:35 , Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
You are not expected to be convinced this, but it seems
continuations completely characterize system programming. :)
Didn't someone already prove all monads can be implemented in terms
of Cont?
(here you see why schemers are so wedded
allbery:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 18:35 , Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
You are not expected to be convinced this, but it seems
continuations completely characterize system programming. :)
Didn't someone already prove all monads can be implemented in terms
of Cont?
Cont and StateT, wasn't
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Seth Gordon wrote:
Aha! Instead of the lambda surrounded by mathematical stuff as the
haskell.org logo, we need a picture of a medicine bottle.
Haskell. Fewer headaches. No side effects.
Alternatively, a picture of a red pill with an embossed lambda...
A snake
On 10/10/2007, Seth Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nervous? Anxious? You found an irreproducable bug in your program and
have to fix it until tomorrow? You feel that your code needs essential
cleanup, but you postponed it for long in order to not introduce new
bugs? You can hardly
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 21:45 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Oct 10, 2007, at 20:14 , Michael Vanier wrote:
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but here's an
idea: use reverse psychology.
Haskell -- You're probably not smart enough to understand it.
Nothing
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Jonathan Cast wrote:
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 21:45 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
[... re programming language machismo ... ]
Haskell already has that reputation, and so far as I've seen most
programmers conclude they shouldn't waste time on it when any half-
Michael Vanier wrote:
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but here's an idea:
use reverse psychology.
Haskell -- You're probably not smart enough to understand it.
Nothing like appealing to people's machismo to get them interested.
Oooo!
+15
Haskell -- You're probably not smart enough to understand it.
You are not expected to understand this.
http://swtch.com/unix/
Tim Newsham
http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Seth Gordon wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
In my experience only the other way round works: Let people use C, Perl and
Python until they find their programs unmaintainable. Then they will become
interested in style and discipline and programming languages which
Henning Thielemann wrote:
There are warrantedly no side effects. It's scientifically approved.
Available without prescription.
:)
Yes, but doctor, my space is leaking! ;-)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Henning Thielemann wrote:
It's scientifically approved. Available without prescription.
Doctor doctor, can you curry me?
Okay, I'm gonna stop now :-)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Claus Reinke wrote:
since this doesn't seem to want to go away:-)
1. reverse psychology approach
...
2. mantra approach
...
3. secret cult approach
...
4. reach for the moon approach
...
5. The fun approach:
Haskell: we put the Fun in Functor.
I'm only half-joking, because for me
Nervous? Anxious? You found an irreproducable bug in your program and
have to fix it until tomorrow? You feel that your code needs essential
cleanup, but you postponed it for long in order to not introduce new
bugs? You can hardly maintain the code as it grows and grows?
Pause a minute!
Aha! Instead of the lambda surrounded by mathematical stuff as the
haskell.org logo, we need a picture of a medicine bottle.
Haskell. Fewer headaches. No side effects.
Alternatively, a picture of a red pill with an embossed lambda...
___
Seth Gordon wrote:
Aha! Instead of the lambda surrounded by mathematical stuff as the
haskell.org logo, we need a picture of a medicine bottle.
Haskell. Fewer headaches. No side effects.
Alternatively, a picture of a red pill with an embossed lambda...
I can hear millions of CS
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Alistair Bayley wrote:
On 08/10/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot turn any programmer into a disciplined programmer just by
giving him a well designed language. I you try so, they will not
like to
use that language,
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 20:54 +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
I must say, I get that! but at the same time, of course, the high
level abstraction is exactly what *we* love about Haskell.
Then they should teach assembly not Python. In fact, I'd recommend
assembly anyway.
How about we just steal the BBC's slogan? Where different works ;-)
Say what you like about Haskell, but it is undeniably very different to
mainstream programming languages. This in itself is a potential
advantage (and problem).
___
Haskell-Cafe
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
(I'm less sold on whether you really need to learn a particular dialect
well enough to *program* in it...)
If you don't then you won't be able to see how complicated things actually
get done. It's also an important exercise in abstracting things
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 23:48 +0100, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Andrew Coppin wrote:
(I'm less sold on whether you really need to learn a particular dialect
well enough to *program* in it...)
If you don't then you won't be able to see how complicated things actually
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but here's an idea: use
reverse psychology.
Haskell -- You're probably not smart enough to understand it.
Nothing like appealing to people's machismo to get them interested.
Mike
Seth Gordon wrote:
Aha! Instead of the lambda surrounded by
What we really need is a sort of stress-strain curve for each of the
major languages. Since Haskell is a typed language, we can have one
curve for types and one for values:
VARIABLE TYPEVALUE
---
On Oct 10, 2007, at 20:14 , Michael Vanier wrote:
I haven't been following this discussion closely, but here's an
idea: use reverse psychology.
Haskell -- You're probably not smart enough to understand it.
Nothing like appealing to people's machismo to get them interested.
Haskell
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Derek Elkins wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 20:54 +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
I must say, I get that! but at the same time, of course, the high
level abstraction is exactly what *we* love about Haskell.
Then they should teach assembly not Python. In fact, I'd recommend
: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] New slogan for haskell.org
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Derek Elkins wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 20:54 +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
I must say, I get that! but at the same time, of course, the high
level abstraction is exactly what *we* love about
Henning Thielemann wrote:
In my experience only the other way round works: Let people use C, Perl
and Python until they find their programs unmaintainable. Then they will
become interested in style and discipline and programming languages
which _support_ good style.
Perhaps this could be
On 05/10/2007, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the question becomes: do you want to attract/seduce this kind of
programmer? Let's assume the answer is yes :-)
Um... that assumpion troubles me.
...
I think if we want to get anywhere we need to look at targeting people
whom
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Alistair Bayley wrote:
I posed the question: do we want to attract this kind of programmer?
My personal opinion, which some of you obviously don't share, is yes.
It isn't about whether or not the Haskell community needs those sorts
of programmers. It's whether or not those
I just had a conversation today that seems relevant to this thread. I
was chatting with a friend who is working in the academic sector, and
I was observing that Melbourne Uni (my old school), is switching in
the new year from teaching Haskell as a first language, to teaching
Python. I was
On 10/8/07, Alistair Bayley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I realise that a large influx of mediocre programmers will have a
negative effect on the community, but is that a reasonable price to
pay? I understand that may of you love a small, intimate, high-quality
community, but perhaps that will
Stewart
Cc: haskell-cafe@haskell.org
Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] New slogan for haskell.org
I just had a conversation today that seems relevant to this thread. I
was chatting with a friend who is working in the academic sector, and
I was observing that Melbourne Uni (my old school), is switching
On 10/8/07, Alistair Bayley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, a large part of Haskell's attraction are the features which
reflect good engineering practice: strong, static type checking;
purely functional code; good FFI. It should be easier to write simple,
reliable software in Haskell than in
On 08/10/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot turn any programmer into a disciplined programmer just by
giving him a well designed language. I you try so, they will not like to
use that language, will leave that language as soon as possible or they
try to adapt the
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Alistair Bayley wrote:
On 08/10/2007, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You cannot turn any programmer into a disciplined programmer just by
giving him a well designed language. I you try so, they will not like to
use that language, will leave that language as
On 10/8/07, Henning Thielemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus, what happens today? People ask Haskell-Cafe how to implement global
variables and they are advised to use IORefs and unsafePerformIO, although
the better answer is: Why do you want to do this? Even Tackling the
awkward squad
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 20:54 +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
I just had a conversation today that seems relevant to this thread. I
was chatting with a friend who is working in the academic sector, and
I was observing that Melbourne Uni (my old school), is switching in
the new year from teaching
since this doesn't seem to want to go away:-)
1. reverse psychology approach
if you have reached this page following rumours of a language
others told you every serious programmer would have to learn,
the ministry of programming would like to reassure you that
there is no such
On 08/10/2007, at 8:54 PM, Thomas Conway wrote:
I just had a conversation today that seems relevant to this thread. I
was chatting with a friend who is working in the academic sector, and
I was observing that Melbourne Uni (my old school), is switching in
the new year from teaching Haskell as
Don Stewart wrote,
catamorphism:
On 10/4/07, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was raised at CUFP today that while Python has:
Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be
used for many kinds of software development. It offers strong
support for
bf3:
For me, a good reason why one should look at Haskell is because you
should NOT look at Haskell since it will change your view on programming
so much, you don't want to go back... ;-)
But where is the great IDE Haskell deserves??? :-) Seriously, 99% of the
programmers I know don't
On 10/5/07, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has been suggested we could just sit DrScheme in front of ghc/ghci.
Anyone with experience who'd like to step up for this?
Note that there's a DrOCaml, which might be a good starting point.
martin
Don Stewart wrote:
It was raised at CUFP today that while Python has:
Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be
used for many kinds of software development. It offers strong
support for integration with other languages and tools, comes with
extensive
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Stewart
It was raised at CUFP today that while Python has:
...
Note its all about how it can help you.
The Haskell website has the rather strange motivational text:
...
Can't we embrace the power of
On 10/4/07, Don Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was raised at CUFP today that while Python has:
Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that can be
used for many kinds of software development. It offers strong
support for integration with other languages and
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
Granted, perhaps your perspective is, if every other company is shouting
customers are number one, then ours must too, and who actually lives up to
it is the non-sequitur here. You're in the buzzword war, not the evidence
war. OK, then make sure
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
Granted, perhaps your perspective is, if every other company is
shouting customers are number one, then ours must too, and who
actually lives up to it is the non-sequitur here. You're in the
buzzword war, not the evidence
Henning Thielemann wrote:
Productivity, robustness, maintainability: purity, type system,
etc. Parallelism!
'type system' is something where C derivatives and scripting languages
are weak - but their users count this as advantage.
Rarely (maybe in the 70's but not since C89). They count
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Laurent Deniau wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
Productivity, robustness, maintainability: purity, type system, etc.
Parallelism!
'type system' is something where C derivatives and scripting languages are
weak - but their users count this as advantage.
Rarely
lemming:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
Granted, perhaps your perspective is, if every other company is shouting
customers are number one, then ours must too, and who actually lives up
to it is the non-sequitur here. You're in the buzzword war, not the
evidence war. OK,
Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Laurent Deniau wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
Productivity, robustness, maintainability: purity, type
system, etc. Parallelism!
'type system' is something where C derivatives and scripting
languages are weak - but their users count this
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
